Germany Shatters Monthly Solar Generation Record With 5.1 Terawatt Hours of Clean Energy

reply to post by hp1229


Well they don't and won't spend money on it, don't you think?
Even roads and many bridges are in bad shape. Eletrical wiring as well and above ground.
Poor flooding protection.

Even New York after last flooding, won't spend more money most likely for better protection in the future?

So when they don't I guess the government should, even when just starting with 1 state as some kind of test for other states.

reply to post by RageAgainstFascism

Tidal energy Solar Energy Wind Geothermal energy

Yup thats the way to go. Plus we are not too far away from ceramic based graphene batteries that can hold a charge for weeks on end.

Funny how most of the breakthroughs are happening outside of the US, while in the US, they keep closing more and more power plants as the cost of power keeps going up and up.

There is even been theorized the possibility of mini thorium plants, the size of a house, which could power a smaller city, and safely keep running for 10-20 years with no worries of fission/boom/fukushima style issues

reply to post by RageAgainstFascism


Very good and relevant post.

Solar, hydel, tide, wind and biomass - these are the keys to green energy.

Congrats to Germans for pulling this off.

Originally posted by sonnny1

Nuclear is too dangerous. MHO

not nearly as dangerous as coal or oil!!

I am proud, that my country is leading in this technology. Japan has announced, they too will start with the nuclear phaseout...

But the politicians and the industry are playing bad tricks on the people again. Since we produce so much green energy now, we need the infrastructure and that costs money. So prices rose about 11 or 12 % for the usual customer, because we need to pay extra fees.
The industries - although consuming the most power - don't have to pay that fee, because this could be a disadvantage on the international market. Funny enough there were even golf clubs and chicken farms that were exempt from this fee as "industrial companies".

The EU has already protested against this practise, but yet it is still the private consumer, who pays for the costs all alone. If this will be corrected then it surely is a great thing.

Originally posted by SirMike
Perspective.

5.1 twh is the equivalent of one 7,100MW generator running for one month.

German has spent roughly $110 billion on solar in the past 10 years just in subsidies alone!

That means they spent $15,500 $/kw in subsidies alone

Compare this to the installed cost of other forms of electricity:

4,000-9,000 $/kw nuclear
3,000-5,000 $/kw coal
1,500-2,000 $/kw combined cycle gas
900-1,200 $/kw gas peaker

And what really puts solar at a disadvantage is it is non-dispatchable, meaning you cant regulate its generation to match grid demands.

Your perspective is purely financial and that's ok.

I think the preservation of Earth and mother nature are priceless. We obviously don't have a way to prevent disasters and to guarantee the safety of nuclear installations, as profitable as they may be. I'm not a tree hugger, I just believe that we owe it to future generations and ourselves to preserve such a beautiful planet.

Nobody can prevent a 9 Richter scale earthquake with consequences we are all well aware of. If you substitute nuclear with alternative, clean energy sources, you take away these consequences. For me, that's worth the investment.

The initial investment will be extremely important, but in the long run the turnover will exceed that investment by far, not to mention that we will be protected against nuclear accidents.

Also, in my post I mentioned a combination of solar, wind, tidal, geothermal and other clean energy sources. I'm also convinced that solar alone will not do the trick, combined sources will.

reply to post by RageAgainstFascism


"Clean" is a bit of a misconception here. We haven''t been able to produce solar panels that produce more energy in their lifetime then it took to make them, until not so very long ago.

They have to at least deduct the amount of energy that was used to make them to come up with a realisic amount of real clean energy.

Although solar energy is cool, the way Germany implemented their massive solar push is totally tyrannical. Many of the German tax payer class is really hurting from all sorts of raised fees and taxes, who do you think is paying for all of these GIGA WATTS of power?

The free market solution....

Corporate interests use the government as a 'strong arm' to get what they want and maintain the status quo. This is something everybody understands. We can't innovate and have new technologies through the free market because the free market is being strangled by the interests that wish to keep everything the same. Get the government out of the way and let entrepreneurs INNOVATE.

I have solar power at home, from memory it was 10000 all up, but only 2000-4000 after gov subsidies (yay Australia!). We tend to get money back from electricity providers these days, unless there has been no sun for a long ass time, which doesn't really happen here (I live in a placed called the Sunshine Coast, so go figure).

What I have found interesting about solar, is that now there's businesses coming out that remind me of the old chimney sweeping businesses, you hire some kid to get up on your roof and clean all the bird # and grime off your panels.

Chimney sweeps are back for the 21st century! I guess they're solar sweeps.

Originally posted by eLPresidente
Although solar energy is cool, the way Germany implemented their massive solar push is totally tyrannical. Many of the German tax payer class is really hurting from all sorts of raised fees and taxes, who do you think is paying for all of these GIGA WATTS of power?

The free market solution....

Corporate interests use the government as a 'strong arm' to get what they want and maintain the status quo. This is something everybody understands. We can't innovate and have new technologies through the free market because the free market is being strangled by the interests that wish to keep everything the same. Get the government out of the way and let entrepreneurs INNOVATE.

edit on 22-8-2013 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)

A free market solution will never push solar or other less efficient technologies unless there's overwhelming customer demand to only use those choices. Business attempts to do things in the way that brings the most profits which often times means the lowest costs. Aside from graphene, solar is never going to be a cost effective source of electricity which makes it a poor business choice. On the other hand it's a very good technology when it comes to not poisoning the planet. Those two things don't always line up to be one and the same.

Originally posted by RageAgainstFascism

Originally posted by SirMike
Perspective.

5.1 twh is the equivalent of one 7,100MW generator running for one month.

German has spent roughly $110 billion on solar in the past 10 years just in subsidies alone!

That means they spent $15,500 $/kw in subsidies alone

Compare this to the installed cost of other forms of electricity:

4,000-9,000 $/kw nuclear
3,000-5,000 $/kw coal
1,500-2,000 $/kw combined cycle gas
900-1,200 $/kw gas peaker

And what really puts solar at a disadvantage is it is non-dispatchable, meaning you cant regulate its generation to match grid demands.

Your perspective is purely financial and that's ok.

I think the preservation of Earth and mother nature are priceless. We obviously don't have a way to prevent disasters and to guarantee the safety of nuclear installations, as profitable as they may be. I'm not a tree hugger, I just believe that we owe it to future generations and ourselves to preserve such a beautiful planet.

Nobody can prevent a 9 Richter scale earthquake with consequences we are all well aware of. If you substitute nuclear with alternative, clean energy sources, you take away these consequences. For me, that's worth the investment.

The initial investment will be extremely important, but in the long run the turnover will exceed that investment by far, not to mention that we will be protected against nuclear accidents.

Also, in my post I mentioned a combination of solar, wind, tidal, geothermal and other clean energy sources. I'm also convinced that solar alone will not do the trick, combined sources will.

edit on 22-8-2013 by RageAgainstFascism because: added comments

Solar energy can be generated cheaply by use of reflectors.
Solar cells are not the best means.

Solar energy can be 'stored' in a medium (like sodium) which can create steam during night-time.

The best way is to create a worldwide electric grid, and free trade in electricity, so that electricity surplus regions can despatch to deficient regions.

Just about every region has some form of green energy available. Geothermal is really the unsung hero of the entire premise. It's viable in most of the US (as well as other places like Australia and Japan), has great power output, uses already known/proven technology, and is good for many thousands of years.

I remember when I lived in Nevada, there were geothermal plants all over the place.

If I said Green Energy will kill you would you believe me?

If you have 30 minutes take a look - if you have solar on your house you better watch cause your frying your wife & kids with AC/Alternating Current. Do yourself a favor and watch the video.

Originally posted by Plugin
reply to post by hp1229

 

So when they don't I guess the government should, even when just starting with 1 state as some kind of test for other states.

edit on 21-8-2013 by Plugin because: (no reason given)

Agree. I guess they're waiting it out and possibly use the crumbling infrstructure as an excuse to blow up the budget requested in the future? Who knows. I've seen some neverending constructions in the NYC and the burroughs for the last 30 years or so. Most of them 'routine maintenance' but I've travelled on them roads and they're never in a good shape. Especially few parts of Brooklyn and Queens.

Originally posted by Cabin

Originally posted by hp1229
I just have two points.

Germany is a relatively small country compared to US in size (geographically and population). Easy to develop/test/implement technologies compared to the vastness of the US and not to mention Political BS.

Solar is dependant upon SUN. How many parts of the US gets adequate sunshine to generate sufficient energy consumption at an adequate cost and feed it back to the grid?

1) Germany is one of the largest countries in the Western hemisphere. By size or population, of course it is smaller than USA, although it is the largest country by population in Europe (depends whether Russia is considered Europe or not, as half of it is in Asia). An advanced economy (not 3rd world country) with over 80 million people is not a small country and Germany is probably one of the few countries in the world which are actually comparable to USA.

2) USA has far more sun than Germany, believe me. 90 degrees Fahrenheit is considered part of an heat wave in these parts of Europe. The climate is quite soft round there, winters average around 25-30 Fahrenheit, summers around 77-80 F.

edit on 21-8-2013 by Cabin because: (no reason given)

Valid points and agree upto certain extent. What about the political system? Can you compare the beurocracy? US has always been a costly and time consuming place to introduce new technology and/or its implementation. Moreover the big energy companies will not let it happen that easily using their lobbyists.